Gay marriages bill approved

Status
Not open for further replies.
xtermin8or said:
well the secular nature of South Africa is the reason why it states, God or Nkosi and not Allah ( PBUH), Mohammed (PBUH), Jehova, Krishna, or J3SUS bless us

BTW (It's really sad that J3SUS is regarded as profanity on this forum)
Click to expand...

So why not the use of the non-spesific term of "Almighty Creator of the Universe" then ???.

Also the use of a verse from of a song composed by a Methodist minister in our constitution is rather interesting.
 
neio said:
I dont often agree with Jon Qwelane but in this case I do.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2007825,00.html
Click to expand...

The separation of powers enshrined in the constitution ensures that parliament is a distinct entity from the judiciary; so the lawmakers can at least tell those justices to go fly kites, or indulge in homosexual unions of their own - but leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

From that column. Isn't that what everyone wants, to be left alone. Why do people feel the need to meddle in other people's lives, just give everyone the same rights to marriage as everybody else and then leave them alone to get on with their lives.
 
neio said:
I dont often agree with Jon Qwelane but in this case I do.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2007825,00.html
Click to expand...

Good old JQ, calling it as he sees it as always.

The religious argument against homosexuals is just such a crock of **** though. The whole point of the seperation of church and state as enshrined in the constitution is to protect individuals from having the beliefs of the majority forced upon us.

I dont want to get into the whole stupidity of religion argument here, but marriage as an institution does not belong to religion, in fact it is strictly a legal union.
If a religion doesnt want to allow gay marriage ceremonies or gays in general within its community thats entirely up to that religious community.
Religion can not come into the argument for against gay marriage because its a legal and constitutional matter and not a religious one.
 
*sigh* Honestly - Jon Qwelane should be rushed to the SPCA and put down - stupid prune!.
 
From this simple point and observation, it is rather illogical for same-sex unions to exist, as such arrangements fly in the face of nature.
Click to expand...
They might if same-sex attraction were not occurring in nature (humans being part of nature).

And is marriage natural at all?
Does mating for life fit in with human nature?
Why do people choose to marry?
Is marriage just a social construct for the purpose of raising children?
 
the question we should ask ourselves is that of are we a constitutional democracy or dictatorship - because the constitutional and courts say that gay marriages be allowed should we then sit idly by and accept it - then we are in a constitutional dictatorship - where the constitution dictates our lives

or

Should Government take into consideration the will of the people and apply it to Gay marriages as in a constitutional democracy

correct me if I am wrong, but the leading religions in the country

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
African Religions
Judaism

all say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore the majority of people should be against gay marriages - will of the people

just my 2c worth
 
xtermin8or said:
the question we should ask ourselves is that of are we a constitutional democracy or dictatorship - because the constitutional and courts say that gay marriages be allowed should we then sit idly by and accept it - then we are in a constitutional dictatorship - where the constitution dictates our lives

or

Should Government take into consideration the will of the people and apply it to Gay marriages as in a constitutional democracy

correct me if I am wrong, but the leading religions in the country

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
African Religions
Judaism

all say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore the majority of people should be against gay marriages - will of the people

just my 2c worth
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state? I'd be considered Christian but yet I support gay marriage. Its not that black and white. And minorities do sometimes have to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
 
xtermin8or said:
the question we should ask ourselves is that of are we a constitutional democracy or dictatorship
Click to expand...
The notion of a constitutional democracy means you live by the constitution. It doesn't mean you allow the majority to bully a minority.

Whether the majority are religious and that majority hates homosexuals is not really relevant. The whole point is to provide equal rights.
 
supersunbird said:
I would suggest most people in the country are not true believers of any faith (well ,definately not the whites)...
Click to expand...

Thats a bit of a broad sweeping statement to make, you probably dont know any.
 
I know a few, but most of the others certainly dont act like it, no matter what they profess. I judge people by their actions, not what they say.
 
nthdimension said:
The notion of a constitutional democracy means you live by the constitution. It doesn't mean you allow the majority to bully a minority.

Whether the majority are religious and that majority hates homosexuals is not really relevant. The whole point is to provide equal rights.
Click to expand...

so many get this wrong, a democracy means at the very basic level, majority rule, minority rights must be taken into account, but the majority can not allow themselves to be bullied by the minority either
 
xtermin8or said:
so many get this wrong, a democracy means at the very basic level, majority rule, minority rights must be taken into account, but the majority can not allow themselves to be bullied by the minority either
Click to expand...
Your misunderstanding seems to stem from assuming the terms constitutional and democracy in consitutional democracy means that what is constitutional is shifted according to the whims of the majority. The democracy part means we get to vote and, theoretically, influence the running of the country. The constitutional part means we have a constitution that forms a baseline - things like equality, freedom of the press, etc. This is necessarily made difficult to change to prevent the whims of the majority from resulting in tyranny.

Anyway there is no bullying by a minority in this case. They're being subjected to blatant discrimination and the constitutional court correctly ruled that this was not allowed and that the law relating to marriage must be fixed. The only surprising thing is that it has taken this long for something to be done about this unacceptable situation.
 
so if someone decides that he wants to be a nudist, he has the right to do so in terms of freedom of expression,

but in terms of laws against public indecency, which is defined as unlawfully, intentionally and publicly committing an act which tends to deprave the morals of others or which outrages the public’s sense of decency and propriety it would be illegal.

That person is then being blatantly discriminated against and could then rightly go to the constitutional court and claim that the legislation is unconstitutional and must be changed or rather that that common law principle not be applied in South Africa

The result of that would be that many sexual offences would have to go unprosecuted, despite the number of naked people walking around your office (look around you and think about it before you say good idea :D )

My point is that just because the constitutional court, purely on the basis of the constitution and the legislation before it, deems it to be one way, does not mean that it is morally the correct position to take.

BTW - AFAIK common law against sodomy and bestiality is still applied in terms of our law
 
according to common law yes, AFAIK it is, but I don't think anyone is likely to be jailed for consentual anal sex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X